Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030 • Hacker News Board

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#211

Post by Synaesthesia » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:46 PM UTC

collyw wrote: post #51

Someone else on HN commented that the poor need to stop reproducing in order to improve equality. At first I found the comment kind of troubling, but the more I think about it the more it seems to make sense. Watching this video kind of backs up the point to a degree, even though the topic is immigration. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE Can someone come back with a decent counterargument? I haven't been a…

China managed to virtually eliminate poverty from the 70’s to today. I think Africa and Latin America can do the same, they have the resources.

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#212

Post by charlesdm » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:46 PM UTC

psyc wrote: post #98

tibbetts wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It matters, and it might be ok if the wealthy were being nice about it. Unfortunately a very active subset seems to be bringing back feudalism. In the 20s-70s rich people were conveniently afraid of communist revolution and thus inclined to distributed gains. Without another credible threat of global revolution I don’t know how this gets fixed. Of course, communism did have downsides for the people who actually lived…

I basically agree with your first sentence. Specifically, I don't believe capitalism itself is the root problem, but rather something like a deficit in social cohesion. No sense that we're fellow humans collectively struggling towards a better society. That sense doesn't necessarily imply a communist implementation. It could mean something as simple as an ethos in which those who are better off try to help others up.…

Capitalism works fine, the only 'flaw' I think it has is that excessive capital can compound way too fast.

If you have $10m, and you invest that really really really well, you might be making 10 to 30% on that capital. Maybe more if you're an entrepreneur investing strategically. That's fine.

But let's say you're worth $1bn, and you compound at 10% per year.. you're making money hand over fist. Add smart use of debt to that, and that's probably too much rent seeking to be healthy.

Basically, once you pass a few 100 million, I think it gets really unfair. Below.. it doesn't really matter. No one will live in poverty because someone owns $100m -- it's meaningless in the grand scheme of things. But wealth is a snowball that doesn't grow fast enough on the low end, and too fast on the high end.

The only way to fix that would probably be a global wealth tax, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#213

Post by eeZah7Ux » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:48 PM UTC

cal5k wrote: post #60

Steven Pinker's new book, Enlightenment Now, has a pretty compelling section on wealth/income inequality. The basic position - and I think the data supports this - is that it really doesn't matter what the top 1% are doing so long as the bottom half are seeing improved living conditions. Furthermore, wealth isn't a static I win/you lose proposition - much of that wealth has been created in recent history. People spen…

> it really doesn't matter what the top 1% are doing so long as the bottom half are seeing improved living conditions.

No. When inequality increases more people are necessarily below the average while a tiny minority gets way above average. The total wealth on the planet is divided among people. This is a basic economic fact.

As inequality increases people are rewarded more for "climbing the ladder". Competition and selfishness increase and cooperation and solidarity decreases.

> I think it's a natural human inclination to fixate

This is the "human nature fallacy".

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#214

Post by btcindivist » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:49 PM UTC

dogma1138 wrote: post #86

dmitriy_ko wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism is so ingrained now, nobody can even imagine that alternative system could exist. In the minds of most, communism is a synonym of authoritarianism. Communist governments tended to be authoritarian, but it's not clear to me if it's a natural consequence of communism. It's more likely that authoritarianism is a consequence of violent revolutions. Is it possible to combine communism with democracy?

There is no way for a communist government to be non-authoritarian communism can’t work in any other way. Planned economy and lack of personal liberties cannot coexist in what we would call a democracy unless your definition of democracy is a slightly less violent conflict resolution method. Overall democracy works because it respects the wishes of the individual essentially it gives everyone the right to express the…

It is a common mistake to characterize communism as collectivist. Marxist notion of communism is brutally individualistic.

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#215

Post by coliveira » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:49 PM UTC

cal5k wrote: post #60

Steven Pinker's new book, Enlightenment Now, has a pretty compelling section on wealth/income inequality. The basic position - and I think the data supports this - is that it really doesn't matter what the top 1% are doing so long as the bottom half are seeing improved living conditions. Furthermore, wealth isn't a static I win/you lose proposition - much of that wealth has been created in recent history. People spen…

First of all it is an illusion to say that conditions have improved because of capitalism alone. In most of the places where people had some improvement, this happened because of socialist policies of wealth redistribution lead by the state, including in the USA. If you go back to the US of the 1910-1930s, most people lived in near poverty, with the "dream" of one day becoming something else, until a socialist plan of wealth redistribution called new deal was implemented.

Second, wealth inequality is a direct threat to the democratic system. In a country that has extreme levels of wealth concentration as we see here in the US and elsewhere, it is very easy to enact policies that harm society in general in benefit of the minority that holds economic power. This in fact was the downfall of capitalist society in the 1920s. In such a society, there is big turmoil among the general population, which frequently leads to revolutions and economic disasters. We are just starting to see this pattern happening the the US, with increasingly big economic calamities such as in 2008 and political turmoil such as the election of Trump. I wouldn't be surprised if the US and similar countries are heading towards a popular revolution as we saw in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#216

Post by tdmule » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:49 PM UTC

theseatoms wrote: post #161

tdmule wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does limiting government limit the powers of the wealthy? It would limit one channel for them to exercise their power, but other channels like corporate control would exist.

What sorts of instances of corporate control are you thinking of here? Most examples that come to my mind involve corporations wielding the power of the state over people.

There are some historical examples of corporate control of people's lives.

Henry Ford's Sociological Department did unannounced visits to employees' homes to ensure they were "model Americans" and probe for union ties.[1][2]

Walmart "locking in" janitors.[3]

There are a lot more examples of negative environmental and financial impact, I picked these two as they are examples of controlling human freedoms.

[1] Negative source: https://jalopnik.com/when-henry-fords-benevolent-secret-poli... [2] Positive source: https://www.thehenryford.org/collections-and-research/digita... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/18/us/workers-assail-night-l...

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#217

Post by ericd » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:51 PM UTC

noobermin wrote: post #177

cal5k wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marxist reverence for the proletariat has been an enduring concept. The problem is that nobody has actually defined who the prols are - are they the factory workers? Entrepreneurs? Teachers? Accountants? Lawyers? Engineers? Civil servants? The US economy is crazy diverse. There really is no such thing as a unified working class struggling against "the man".

If you're just talking about Marxian definitions, it's simple: Owns means of production: bourgeousie Works without owning means of production: proletariat

Where do all the workers who have 401k plans composed of shares of all the public companies in the US fit?

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#218

Post by ericd » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:53 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #210

ericd wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The richest pay the vast majority of the tax in the US, regardless of whether they work. And the very richest in the US almost all got there by working, many of them by starting huge companies.

Actual tax rates as a percentage of total income are remarkably flat in the US. It is commonly stated that the rich pay almost everything, but this is done by examining only the federal income tax and ignoring all the other taxes we pay.

I didn't say that they paid a large proportion of their income, I said they paid almost all the tax. That's because their incomes tend to be much much larger than those of the poor.

I was responding to "because all taxes will be paid by workers.", which is complete nonsense.

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#219

Post by iguy » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:53 PM UTC

mpweiher wrote: post #162

cal5k wrote: post #60

Steven Pinker's new book, Enlightenment Now, has a pretty compelling section on wealth/income inequality. The basic position - and I think the data supports this - is that it really doesn't matter what the top 1% are doing so long as the bottom half are seeing improved living conditions. Furthermore, wealth isn't a static I win/you lose proposition - much of that wealth has been created in recent history. People spen…

There's a lot to agree with, for example the things Pinker talks about and the fact that wealth is not necessarily a zero sum game. However...income inequality by itself is a problem. Hmm...I thought it was one of Hans Rosling's (amazing) TED talks, but now I just see Richard Wilkinson's talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson Anyway, the fascinating thing is that everything gets worse in a country when the…

everything gets worse in a country when there is "too much" inequality

How sure are we of the causality here? Does inequality make these things happen?

Maybe countries with strong feelings of unity tend to look after their poorest members better, and tax or restrain their wealthiest members more strongly. In countries with no such feelings it's every man for himself, and those who can screw those who can't, economically and politically. These are less nice places to live, but inequality is one of the results of this, not the cause.

Re: Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030

#220

Post by JoeAltmaier » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:55 PM UTC

coliveira wrote: post #215

cal5k wrote: post #60

Steven Pinker's new book, Enlightenment Now, has a pretty compelling section on wealth/income inequality. The basic position - and I think the data supports this - is that it really doesn't matter what the top 1% are doing so long as the bottom half are seeing improved living conditions. Furthermore, wealth isn't a static I win/you lose proposition - much of that wealth has been created in recent history. People spen…

First of all it is an illusion to say that conditions have improved because of capitalism alone. In most of the places where people had some improvement, this happened because of socialist policies of wealth redistribution lead by the state, including in the USA. If you go back to the US of the 1910-1930s, most people lived in near poverty, with the "dream" of one day becoming something else, until a socialist plan o…

Further, even if we give 'capital' a pass (the use of imaginary points to grease the wheels of trade) and move on to the Free Market. A market works if everybody has something to trade there. For those that bring only their labor (whether ditch digging, medicine or engineering) they have a finite value over their lifetime - they will never be wealthy as the top 1% are.

Now automate. We no longer need the labor of millions to run the machine (country's industry). We need only a million. Then only a hundred thousand. Then none. What happens to the 'laborers'? They are dropped out of the bottom of the machine as scrap.

Its this 'means of production' that gets us into trouble - when a few folks squat on it and call it 'theirs', the rest of us are reduce to marginal participants in the machine, expendable.

Automation is happening in the US at an explosive rate. Heard about a factory coming back from China? Only because now even Chinese labor is too expensive, if you can automate. There are insignificant jobs 'coming back'. And there never will be any more, again.

No, the age of labor is nearly over. And what will the millions of us do then?